Differential processing of decision information in subregions of rodent medial prefrontal cortex

Decision-making involves multiple cognitive processes requiring different aspects of information about the situation at hand. The rodent medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been hypothesized to be central to these abilities. Functional studies have sought to link specific processes to specific anatomical subregions, but past studies of mPFC have yielded controversial results, leaving the precise nature of mPFC function unclear. To settle this debate, we recorded from the full dorso-ventral extent of mPFC in each of 8 rats, as they performed a complex economic decision task. These data revealed four distinct functional domains within mPFC that closely mirrored anatomically identified subregions, including novel evidence to divide prelimbic cortex into dorsal and ventral components. We found that dorsal aspects of mPFC (ACC, dPL) were more involved in processing information about active decisions, while ventral aspects (vPL, IL) were more engaged in motivational factors.

For all that apply, please note where in the article the information is provided. Please note that we also collect information about data availability and ethics in the submission form.

Materials:
Newly created materials Indicate where provided: section/figure legend

N/A
The manuscript includes a dedicated "materials availability statement" providing transparent disclosure about availability of newly created materials including details on how materials can be accessed and describing any restrictions on access. All data and code necessary to replicate the presented results can be found at: https://osf.io/s5xqm/ If reused data is publicly available provide accession number in repository OR DOI, OR URL, OR citation.

N/A
Code availability Indicate where provided: section/figure legend

N/A
For any computer code/software/mathematical algorithms essential for replicating the main findings of the study, whether newly generated or re-used, the manuscript includes a data availability statement that provides details for access or notes restrictions.
All data and code necessary to replicate the presented results can be found at: https://osf.io/s5xqm/ Where newly generated code is publicly available, provide accession number in repository, OR DOI OR URL and licensing details where available. State any restrictions on code availability or accessibility.
All data and code necessary to replicate the presented results can be found at: https://osf.io/s5xqm/ If reused code is publicly available provide accession number in repository OR DOI OR URL, OR citation.

Reporting:
The MDAR framework recommends adoption of discipline-specific guidelines, established and endorsed through community initiatives.

Adherence to community standards Indicate where provided: section/figure legend N/A
State if relevant guidelines (e.g., ICMJE, MIBBI, ARRIVE, STRANGE) have been followed, and whether a checklist (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE) is provided with the manuscript.

N/A
* We provide the following guidance regarding transparent reporting and statistics; we also refer authors to Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.

Sample-size estimation
• You should state whether an appropriate sample size was computed when the study was being designed • You should state the statistical method of sample size computation and any required assumptions • If no explicit power analysis was used, you should describe how you decided what sample (replicate) size (number) to use

Replicates
• You should report how often each experiment was performed • You should include a definition of biological versus technical replication • The data obtained should be provided and sufficient information should be provided to indicate the number of independent biological and/or technical replicates • If you encountered any outliers, you should describe how these were handled • Criteria for exclusion/inclusion of data should be clearly stated • High-throughput sequence data should be uploaded before submission, with a private link for reviewers provided (these are available from both GEO and ArrayExpress)

Statistical reporting
• Statistical analysis methods should be described and justified • Raw data should be presented in figures whenever informative to do so (typically when N per group is less than 10) • For each experiment, you should identify the statistical tests used, exact values of N, definitions of center, methods of multiple test correction, and dispersion and precision measures (e.g., mean, median, SD, SEM, confidence intervals; and, for the major substantive results, a measure of effect size (e.g., Pearson's r, Cohen's d) • Report exact p-values wherever possible alongside the summary statistics and 95% confidence intervals. These should be reported for all key questions and not only when the p-value is less than 0.05.

Group allocation
• Indicate how samples were allocated into experimental groups (in the case of clinical studies, please specify allocation to treatment method); if randomization was used, please also state if restricted randomization was applied • Indicate if masking was used during group allocation, data collection and/or data analysis